Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 383 results found
Michael Egnor has a fascinating post on neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield’s evidence-based conversion from materialism to dualism: Penfield began his career as a materialist, convinced that the mind was wholly a product of the brain. He finished his career as an emphatic dualist.
Tonight’s the night! Join me right here, on Google+, or on YouTube at 6:30 p.m. (PT) to see the live video feed of “Shattering the Icons of Evolution.” I’ll be talking about how to recognize and respond to the different categories that arguments for macroevolution fall into: exaggerated extrapolations, egregious errors, and equivocal evidence.
Mark April 25th on your calendar—we’ll be streaming a live event with Tim Barnett on “Shattering the Icons of Evolution.” You can view it on Google+, YouTube, or right here on the blog at 6:30 p.m. (PT):
In this short video from Ligonier, Stephen Meyer demonstrates not only some evidence for a beginning of the universe, but also how a scientist’s worldview and biases can direct and constrain his findings, distorting what he considers to be “scientific”—sometimes without his even realizing it. Even a scientist as great as Einstein.
I would like to offer you, in a nutshell, what I think is the simplest, most powerful way, strategically, to make your case as a Christian. I would like to offer you, in a nutshell, what I think is the simplest, most powerful way, strategically, to make your case as a Christian. I have been using it a long time in a variety of ways, though it really came together for me quite by accident recently when my eldest daughter, then about eight years old, asked me an important question.
Atheists will often assert that evolution is not random. (In fact, I was having this conversation just last night!) This is true if we’re talking about the natural selection part of the process, but natural selection can only select from what already exists. It’s the mutations that must provide the new genetic information, and mutations do not occur according to what is needed for an organism to survive; they can only cause the being to survive (and thus be selected) after they happen to occur.
Here's my response to this week's challenge: COMMENTS
Here’s another challenge from “40 Problems with Christianity”—one I’ve heard atheists cite before:
When I meet someone who claims that evolution is a fact, I have two questions for him. First, I need to find out what he means by evolution. To do this, I employ a variation of the first Columbo question: What do you mean by evolution? The term evolution can be used to mean a number of different things. Therefore, it’s important to find out precisely what they mean.
Evolutionists love to point to vestigial structures in the biological realm as evidence for evolution. The argument goes like this: Some organisms contain structures that were once functional in their evolutionary past but have now become useless (or almost useless). In The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins writes, “Vestigial eyes are evidence of evolution. Given that a cave salamander lives in perpetual darkness so has no use for eyes, why would a divine creator nevertheless furnish it with dummy eyes, clearly related to eyes, but non-functional?”